Hanumantharaya vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable u/s 302 of IPC registered in respondent-PS Crime No. 232/2013. The brief facts of the case as per the averments of the complainant are that two months back prior to the incident, the deceased Thippamma and her husband Hemanna, took her house for rent of Rs. 600/- p.m. and paid an advance of Rs. 5,000/- and they were paying the house rent as per agreement. They had a small girl child aged about 3 years. It is further alleged in the complaint that the deceased was working in Meena Mahal as a house keeping and she did not know where her husband was working. The deceased and her husband were quarrelling in night times and her husband was coming once in a week to the house. On 21.4.2013, as usual the husband of the deceased came to the house at 5.00 p.m. and at 11.00 p.m. started quarrelling with the deceased. On 22.4.2013 at about 5.30 a.m., as usual, the complainant went to sell flowers and returned back at about 8.30 a.m. and noticed that Thippamma''s house door was not locked. The complainant pushed the door of the house of the deceased, at that time, she noticed that the deceased was lying on the floor where the body was covered with a blanket.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the Court below in the bail application and also perused the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating officer during the investigation. Perusing the material, initially, the complainant gave a complaint alleging that Hemanna, husband of Thippamma committed the murder of the deceased. It is also further alleged in the complaint that the husband of the deceased was quarrelling with the deceased Thippamma during the night time. But, subsequently the complainant gave further statement and changed the name of accused from Hemanna to Hanumantharaya. I have also perused the inquest mahazar. During the course of recording inquest mahazar, the father of deceased has also stated in his statement that the deceased was given in marriage to Hemanna, who used to quarrel with the deceased. Once Hemanna assaulted the deceased and in that connection the deceased lodged a complaint before the police against her husband, Hemanna. On perusal of the material placed on record, prima facie, goes to show that the relationship of the deceased and her husband, Hemanna was not on cordial terms and they were quarreled and there was difference of opinion between them. I have further perused the averments made in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses. They all go to show that on the basis of suspect, the prosecution imagined that the petitioner, Hanumantharaya might have committed the murder of deceased during the night. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The witnesses examined have stated that they have identified the petitioner, who used to come to the house of Thippamma. Therefore, looking to the material on record, there are no direct eye witnesses to the alleged incident of murder of Thippamma by the present petitioner. It is only on the basis of the statement of witnesses, they have suspected the commission of offence made by the present petitioner. Subsequently, the case has been registered against the present petitioner and the name of culprit has been changed from Hemanna to Hanumantharaya. The investigation of the case has already been completed. There are no recoveries from the present petitioner and chargesheet has also been filed in the case. Therefore, looking to the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that it is the fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, reasonable conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable u/s 302 of IPC registered in Crime No. 232/2013 of the respondent - Hulimavu police subject to the following conditions:-

(a) The petitioner has to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(b) The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly; and

(c) The petitioner has to appear before the Court regularly.